Talk:Relics of Sariputta and Moggallana

Requested move 26 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move but no consensus as to the page title. The one that seemed like it had the least objections was Relics of Sariputta and Moggallana, so I've moved it there per WP:THREEOUTCOMES. No prejudice against a speedy renomination to try to sort out a consensus for a stable title.(non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Relics of Sariputra and Mahamoggallana → Relics of Sariputra and Maudgalyayana – The title is problematic mixture of two languages, Mahamoggallana being Pali language and Sariputra being Sanskrit. Propose to spell both names in Sanskrit. Maha is optional, and can be left out.

References

Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point about the mixture of languages. I'm not sure, I wonder whether it would be better to choose Pali, thus staying close to the forms used in the inscriptions, which (as cited in the article) are not in Sanskrit. That would give Relics of Sariputta and Mahamoggallana. You are correct that "Maha" is optional, but it seems to appear in the relevant inscription. Andrew Dalby 09:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Having read through the article again, I agree with you, Andrew Dalby.

--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - how about use Pali and drop the "Maha", which makes the word long and difficult for English speakers, and is entirely optional. The article should be at Relics of Sariputta and Moggallana, which is much more Anglophone-friendly, and equally accurate. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• Move to alternative suggestion Relics of Sariputta and Moggallana. As a descriptive phrase title this ticks all the boxes, addressing valid concern of nom and improving Wikipedia. The two other proposed titles could both be created as redirects, not essential but possibly useful and no downside. Andrewa (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thank you for reviewing my article! I look forward to working with you. Wikiman5676 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Relics of Sariputta and Moggallana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 08:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 

Starts GA Review Page. Hopefully we will start the review shortly. Thank you       --Whiteguru (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Observations

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• Page has 1 obsolete HTML tag. The tag is <center> which is on the gallery. To center objects in Wikipedia, please follow the guidance in this template.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• After several attempts, Reference 1 does not load. Consider using the archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20201105064548/http://promienie.net/images/dharma/books/sutras_great-disciples-of-the-buddha.pdf. Change the link for References 1,3 and 7.
• Reference 6 suggests that Cunda was Sariputta's brother, not assistant.
• Reference 6 is cited for the beating of Maudgalyayana's death in a cave. The reference actually goes to Sariputta, not Maudagalyayana. Consider this link: http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/maha/maha_moggallana_th.htm
• Reference 9 → please cite page 768 for Rhys-Davis and the account of the murder of Maha Moggallana.
• Reference 14, second citation is page 113.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• In Reference 57, Brekke states, inter-alia, Brekke argues that the story of the relics showed a dynamic between archaeology and politics. In the view of curators at the Victoria and Albert Museum, as well as that of Maisey and Cunningham, the relics of Sariputta and Moggallana had only artistic and historical value, and in that world there was "no place for the religious use of relics", states Brekke. ... Is this the penultimate statement about the significance of these relics, and relics of the Buddha? Admittedly, there is thesis-antithesis with the comment from Daulton following immediately. It is suggested that a more appropriate finish to this article might be crafted - given the significance of these relics, and and accounts of veneration of these relics. It might be better to speak of veneration of relics and their place in devotion and prayer, particularly where relics are kept in places wherein monks and other spiritual bodies offer veneration daily.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• Yes, NPOV is preserved in this article.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• Page created 29 March 2007
• Page has 233 edits by 34 editors
• 90 day page views = 1,306 views. Daily average is 14 visitors.
• examination of page history shows stability and no evidence of edit warring.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• Stupa 3 - Sanchi Hill 2013-02-21 4270.JPG = Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Caption is appropriate.
• 032 Passing of Sariputta (35252914515).jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Caption is appropriate.
• Moggallana - paranibbana.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Caption is appropriate.
• Sanchi Stupa No 3 relics.jpg = public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. Caption is appropriate.
• Alexander Cunningham of the ASI 02.jpg = public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. ditto.
• Satdhara stupas and relics.jpg = public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1926. Caption is appropriate.
• South Kensington Museum; the interior of the architectural c Wellcome V0013595ER.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Good captioning.
• SL Colombo asv2020-01 img10 National Museum.jpg = redistribute it and/or modify it according to terms of the Free Art License. Copyright surrendered. (then just called the Colombo Museum), change to → (then called the Colombo Museum)
• The Gallery: note there is an obsolete HTML page setting for the gallery.
• Kaba Aye Paya 2.JPG = Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. Link is not required in the caption, the Pagoda has been linked in the Lede. See MOS:REPEATLINK
• Narendra Modi at the Mahabodhi Society, in Colombo, Sri Lanka on March 13, 2015.jpg = Government of India under the ID 63054 and CNR 65744 for free and non-commercial. Remove link to Colombo in caption.
• Chetiyagiri Vihar 02.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license. Caption is appropriate.
• DharmarajikaChetiyaViharaInterior MahabodhiSoc CollegeSq-Calcutta 1926Nov.jpg = public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. Remove link to Maha Bodhi Society, see MOS:REPEATLINK

1. Overall:

• A well written page which makes good use of references and unfolds the (recent) history of these relics. Attention should be paid to devotion and veneration of the relics.
• Editing and correction of matters raised above should enable this article to progress to GA status.       --Whiteguru (talk)

 

@Whiteguru: I have made the corrections. As for the conclusion, I wasn't really able to find any reliable sources that talked about the daily worship routine of any of the relics. So I put together a conclusion that discussed the relics religious significance. Let me know what you think of the change. Wikiman5676 (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wikiman5676: Thank you. That is a very good finish to the article and captures more of both the personal significance and veneration Buddhists (and others) have for these relics. Thank you for correcting the other minor issues. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 

 Passed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.